Credit is due to BBC Radio 4 for not yielding to the witch-hunters vis-à-vis Sir Roger Scruton, and for retaining him as an A Point of View regular. Good on them!
Here is his latest A Point of View in full:
Three years ago the distinguished biochemist Sir Tim Hunt, recipient of the Nobel Prize, Fellow of the Royal Society and one of the jewels in the crown of British science, made a casual remark during a speech at a conference of science journalists which seemed to imply that women and men might not be equally suited to a scientific career. The remark was tweeted, and the mob got to work on it. Very soon Sir Tim found himself forced out of his position as Honorary Professor at University College, London, reprimanded by the Royal Society, hounded in the press, and subjected to a hate campaign on social media. Eventually he and his wife, a scientist of the same rank as himself, left the country to work in Japan.
This deplorable episode is one of many in which a person's character, career and livelihood have been attacked in punishment for a thought crime. Social media make matters worse, of course, but it would be wrong to put the blame wholly on the ease with which malice and ignorance can now extend their reach across the internet. We must also take account of political correctness, which both promotes hatred and also excuses it.
On the surface political correctness seems like a way of standing up for victims, be they women, minorities, gays, transsexuals or whatever. In reality, however, it is about creating victims. It sets out to repudiate the hierarchies and distinctions embedded in our traditional way of life. People in the grip of political correctness are in search of the one who has sown hatred and rejection that they sense all around. They are experts in taking offence, regardless of whether offence has been given. They refrain from addressing the arguments of the one whom they accuse, and when they are offended by a remark they do not hesitate to take it entirely out of context so to dress it up as a crime. As judge, prosecutor and jury they are the voice of an unquestionable righteousness. Their goal is to intimidate their opponents by exposing them to public humiliation.
This is what we see when students deny a platform to people whose arguments they don't want to listen to. It is what we encounter in the name-calling labels 'racism', 'sexism', 'homophobia', 'Islamophobia', 'transphobia', which are designed to silence any who might wish to defend some old and questionable practice - as Sir Tim seemed to be defending the view of the laboratory as a male preserve.
It is in this way that the disease of 'Islamophobia' was invented in order to preclude all discussion of the most important issue facing European societies today. Ordinary people wonder whether the God of Islam permits the crimes that are committed in his name but they dare not pursue the matter for fear of attracting the charge of 'Islamophobia'. The question that cannot be asked is like a festering wound filling the mind with suspicions. And, in this way, political correctness stirs up fear in the place of reconciliation by turning doubt about Islam into a thought crime. It recasts legitimate anxieties as acts of aggression and lays at the door of Islam's critics the crimes that are committed in Islam's name.
Similar things have happened with the 'homophobia' and 'transphobia' labels. The -isms and -phobias have been used in order to put some complex matter beyond discussion, so that only one perspective can be publicly confessed to - namely the perspective that is politically correct.
Moreover, because political correctness deals in thought crimes, it closes the gap between accusation and guilt. In the world of political correctness there is no presumption of innocence but only a hunger for targets.
But I don't put the blame only on political correctness. There is a far deeper and more durable feature of the human condition that comes to the surface in the witch-hunt. and that is the feature known as 'scapegoating'. The French philosopher René Girard has argued that natural societies are subject to powerful rivalries as people strive to match each other's powers and possessions and to triumph in the fight for ascendancy. Such societies risk being torn apart by what Girard calls "mimetic desire", that is the desire of one person to enjoy the rewards received by another. The solution is to find the enemy within, the one who does not really belong in the social order and who is, therefore, not entitled to vengeance against it. Such people can be quickly stripped of protection by the mob. They might be accused of necromancy, incest or parricide, of having no family to protect them, of pretending to be king. They are a source of pollution, like Oedipus, to be cast out from the city. They can be killed with impunity or left to die. By combining against them we take revenge for the offences we have suffered, for they, in a mysterious way, were the cause. They become sacrificial victims whose death at our hands will rid us of the pollution that radiates from their malign presence.
The story has been repeated down the centuries. It is the story of Oedipus, and also of Christ. It is the story of the millenarian panics of the Middle Ages, of the witch-hunts of 17th century Massachusetts, of the centuries-old persecution of the Jews. In every period when the bonds of society weaken and social trust gives way to mutual suspicion the scapegoat mechanism returns to restore a threatened sense of unity.
An example is before our eyes in the case of Asia Bibi, the Christian Pakistani woman accused of blaspheming against the holy Koran, and although now acquitted still living in fear for her life. Television images of her hysterical accusers show a unity of purpose that surpasses anything that could survive in day-to-day life. They scream for her blood since it is the food of their togetherness.
Girard believed that Christ showed the way out of the scapegoat mechanism when he prayed for those who nailed him to the cross,saying "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do". But there is little evidence that Christ's example brought scapegoating to an end. We too have recourse to it when besieged by social resentment. The sense of being excluded, of wandering outside society in search of an ideal community of belonging; this is a familiar modern experience. And political correctness is one form that it takes, for it provides a short cut to blame, a way to direct one's frustration at an enemy and to group together in destroying him. A society in the grip of political correctness is on the lookout for the scapegoat who will heal its divisions by showing that it is he not they who is the cause of them.
So how should you respond to this mechanism when it comes your way? The question arose for me some weeks ago when, being appointed to an unpaid government position, I became a news item. At once I found myself accused of every crime in the ledger of political correctness, Islamophobia and antisemitism included.
As a philosopher I consider propositions in the light of their truth not their political correctness, hence I have not bothered to forestall the cultural vigilantes who sift through our words in search of heresy. People who are not in the habit of thinking can easily take sentences out of context and believe that they're discovering a thought crime. 'So what?', I've always thought. 'That's their problem, not mine'. 'No', said The Guardian, 'it is not our problem but yours'.
At the worst moment, reading about the dreadful things said about me by people who seem to have no knowledge of what I have actually written or said, I felt myself standing in an electric storm of hatred and was tempted to hate in my turn, but then a concerned friend reminded me of the beautiful verse in the Koran which says that the servants of the All-Compassionate One, when challenged by the ignorant, speak peaceably, qâlou salâman. They reach for dialogue and argument and open the way to respect.
This is surely the correct response to the emerging witch-hunt culture. We must speak peaceably, even to our accusers. We must avoid the name-calling, shrug off the -isms and -phobias when they are heaped on us, confessed to our true faults and robustly deny the invented ones. Most importantly we should venerate truth and ignore political correctness, which is not the cure to our conflicts but the ultimate source of them.
No credit is due. It's pragmatism on their part: an implicit acknowledgement of their bias to let one contrary opinion be published occasionally as a valuable piece of evidence that will be used on their day of reckoning.ReplyDelete
They're very careful who they let on to represednt "the right"...preferably people who have the aura of the 1950s on them and are a bit suspect in the nether regions, so to speak (gay marriage et al).Delete
The last thing they will allow is a young voice from the populist right.
People like Scruton and Hitchens (Peter) are also allowed on because they are polite about or even applaud the Koran. Look at how Christopher Hitchens (in the years before his death) and now Richard Dawkins have become increasingly non persona grata - despite formerly having been much lauded by the BBC.
I think the carefully chosen token credit IS due on the exact same logic as their carefully chosen token opportunity to provide the platform now and then :)Delete
Ironic that he should mention Sir Tim Hunt. An Italian scienist at CERN is currently on the sacrificial altar of political correctness, and the BBC led the way on that.ReplyDelete
Despite the above caveats, which I am sure are true, I was quite heartened to listen to Roger Scruton this morning. But unfortunately he is a very small voice that will completely drowned out by the “Hate speech is not free speech” mob, both within and without the BBC. Views which oppose BBC groupthink are given a little airtime to reinforce the illusion of balance, but are vastly outnumbered by the rest of output. It is even more effective as propaganda than completely no-platforming them. I also suspect that Scruton is a little too articulate to hold the interest of the average SJW activist.ReplyDelete
Dawkins was on Radio 4 last Tuesday with, “Trust Me, I’m a Scientist”. I was hoping it would be a series, but I fear it was just a one off. Same tactic?
Take heart from the fact that by projecting a disortion of reality they don't actually change it.ReplyDelete
Sure they can win young people's votes by bias, denial and ommission, lets say by presenting a heart-wrenching coastal erosion story as 'something to do with climate change', (which anyone with a scientific mind and knowledge of the history of sea level changes will know is nonsense), but the reality itself doesnt change and will (eventually) be obvious. Ask yourself what their game plan is? A prolonged big state 'multi-cultural socialist society? We already know that will be hell. Then the pendulum swings back the other way. Good blog though. Keep up the great work.